watch the first point of this video of Wilander vs. Lendl at the Australian in 83 and then try to imagine a similar point at Wimbledon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2WIBU6i-Ac&feature=related

The Aussie grass got sun baked and hard, and it also sloped uphill towards the net. It's extremely different than the Wimbledon grass.

Every time I read people here talking about how Agassi won on four different surfaces and it was much more impressive than Laver and the old guard winning because three Slams were on grass, I think of this.

tudwell

05-15-2009, 08:51 PM

I think the length of that rally had more to do with the guys who were playing than the speed of the grass. In reality, the Aussie grass was usually faster than Wimbledon. The grass at the Australian was, as you say, sun baked and hard, allowing the ball to skid through the court even more. The grass at Wimbledon was most often wet and the air humid, which slows the balls down. I agree with you, though, that grass could be extremely different at different venues.

Yes, the Australian had a much truer bounce. The ball at Wimbledon tends to skid and stay low. Because of how firm the grass got in Australia, it produced a truer, higher bounce.

Fate Archer

05-15-2009, 09:26 PM

watch the first point of this video of Wilander vs. Lendl at the Australian in 83 and then try to imagine a similar point at Wimbledon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2WIBU6i-Ac&feature=related

The Aussie grass got sun baked and hard, and it also sloped uphill towards the net. It's extremely different than the Wimbledon grass.

Every time I read people here talking about how Agassi won on four different surfaces and it was much more impressive than Laver and the old guard winning because three Slams were on grass, I think of this.

Yes, the Australian had a much truer bounce. The ball at Wimbledon tends to skid and stay low. Because of how firm the grass got in Australia, it produced a truer, higher bounce.

So, theoretically, it actually played similarly to Wimbledon nowdays.
Just from looking, the bounce in this video seemed much like Wimbledon (today) to me as well.

But Agassi won Wimbledon in 1992, way before they changed the composition of the grass, turning the bounce better.

With the grass of those days in Wimb (before 2001), the ball skidded and stayed lower, turning the game faster paced (right?). If it played faster, then the adaptation to the different surfaces was much more difficult in Agassi's time, I guess. :)

vtmike

05-15-2009, 10:11 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYds3V-fAXk&feature=related

Moose Malloy

05-15-2009, 10:35 PM

I think the length of that rally had more to do with the guys who were playing than the speed of the grass.

Yet Lendl was serving & volleying on 1st AND 2nd serves vs Mac that same year at Wimbledon(and judging from the NY Times writeup of that match, he was doing that at all his matches at Wimbledon that year prior to meeting Mac) Different grass indeed...

and it also sloped uphill towards the net

This was a very important factor in the conditions at the AO. Lendl, Mac, Becker, Martina & many others talked of how tricky it was to adjust to the slope. Martina & Becker dominated Wimbledon, but not the AO. You don't need to go back to Laver's time to find pros talking about how different the conditions were at these 2 venues. Hell, don't today's pros talk about the difference between Queens & W? Every grasscourt in the world doesn't have the same grass, groundskeeper, etc. Surprised so many serious tennis fans don't seem to get that.

and its funny how so many here dismiss the differences in grasscourts during Laver's time, but in other threads I see them obsessing over the 'different clay' in Madrid this week.